Theistic Evolution, Catholicism or ND?

[BobRyan]

There you go again, sounding like you’re lumping me in with atheists. If you’re not insinuating that I’m an atheist then you really need to brush up on your communication skills.

I think you and I both agree that you and atheists both believe in the doctrine on origins found in evolutionism.

That fact alone does not make you an atheist.

As I have said before - I don't think anyone on this section of CF is an atheist. My statement about my own beliefs still stands.

 

[BobRyan]

Hebrew scholars who don't see scripture as literal are not "a recent thing".

don't care - that was not my point.
1. People who believe in the Bhagavad Gita are not "a recent thing"
2. Christ's statement that the Jews of his day were getting a lot of things wrong as He said in Mark 7:6-13 shows that this too is not "new".
3. Some Jews in Matt 22 rejected the resurrection. That was 2000 yeaers ago... so "not a recent thing" and they were Hebrew scholars.

My point is James Barr's statement that Hebrew scholars in all world class universities fully accept the literal meaning of the text as the correct rendering just as the creationist Bible believing Christians do.

The only ones that have a problem with that - are the ones trying to get darwinism out of Moses. Neither of the first two groups are in that compromised position.

I get your point.

really??

Your guy has an agenda to make science and God mutually exclusive. But he's wrong.

He agrees with the creationists on "what the text says" and the reason they agree is not that they both think the Bible needs to look bad -- but because they can read -- and their pre-existing views do not require that they bend or wrench the text -- not even if the text says "two plus two is four" or if it says Christ was born of a virgin or that people should work six days because God made all life on Earth in six days...

This is the easy part.

 

[The Barbarian]

My point is James Barr's statement that Hebrew scholars in all world class universities fully accept the literal meaning of the text as the correct rendering just as the creationist Bible believing Christians do.

And neither you nor he put up any evidence to support his statement. But I showed you that Hebrew scholars have, for a long time, realized that it is not an account of six literal days.

So until you can show that he actually has something to back his statement, and is not just engaging in his agenda to show that science and God are incompatible, you have nothing but wishful thinking.

 

[Aussie Pete]

It matters to me.

Perhaps you should consider whether or not it matters to God. He is not interested in our opinions. God is more interested in our loving the brethren and seeking to maintain unity.

 

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps you should consider whether or not it matters to God. He is not interested in our opinions. God is more interested in our loving the brethren and seeking to maintain unity.

Loving our bretheren, at least. I suspect that He's comfortable with different denominations, which may result in more people saved, since they are more likely to find a group that will lead them to come to Him.

 

[BobRyan]

My point is James Barr's statement that Hebrew scholars in all world class universities fully accept the literal meaning of the text as the correct rendering just as the creationist Bible believing Christians do.

And neither you nor he put up any evidence to support his statement. But I showed you that Hebrew scholars have, for a long time, realized that it is not an account of six literal days.

Well we have "you" for whatever oppostion there is to James' Barr's claim and on the other hand we have James Barr who actually does work for world class university as a scholar in the fields he is speaking to -- I don't mind that contrast - let everyone make up their own mind as they wish.

I have no problem with that.

It totally devastates the wild accusation that the only reason Bible believing creationists admit to the obvious statements in Gen 1-2 and Ex 20:8-11 about the literal 7 day week is just "because they are creationists". An accusation that does not fair well by merely hoping we do not notice that the text is so glaringly obvious that even the agnostic and atheist professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities admit to what it says.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well we have "you" for whatever oppostion there is to James' Barr's claim

And all those Hebrew scholars I cited. C'mon.

and on the other hand we have James Barr who actually does work for world class university as a scholar in the fields he is speaking to

A Hebrew scholar who never heard of Maimonides. How... surprising.

It totally devastates the wild accusation that the only reason Bible believing creationists admit to the obvious statements in Gen 1-2 and Ex 20:8-11 about the literal 7 day week is just "because they are creationists".

As you know, some atheists share with creationists, an agenda to make scripture and science incompatible. So you're back where you started.

n accusation that does not fair well by merely hoping we do not notice that the text is so glaringly obvious that even the agnostic and atheist professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities admit to what it says.

Well, that's the part you don't seem able to support with any evidence. So, let's see what Hebrew scholars actually have to say about it. Hebrew scholar Dr. Jeff Tigay writes:
But, as Steven Katz notes…, "In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so." In fact, as we shall argue below, even the compilers of the Bible do not seem to have been concerned with a literal reading of the text. They were prepared to have at least parts of it read non-literally.

In the Middle Ages, Saadia Gaon argued that a biblical passage should not be interpreted literally if that made a passage mean something contrary to the senses or reason (or, as we would say, science; Emunot ve-Deot, chapter 7). Maimonides applied this principle to theories about creation. He held that if the eternity of the universe (what we would call the Steady State theory) could be proven by logic (science) then the biblical passages speaking about creation at a point in time could and should be interpreted figuratively in a way that is compatible with the eternity of the universe.

It is only because the eternity of the universe has not been proven that he interpreted the verses about creation at a point in time literally (Guide, II, 25), but he still insisted that the creation story as a whole was written metaphorically (Book I, Introduction).

To Saadia and Maimonides, belief in the truth of the Bible does not require a denial of science ("reason," "logic") when the two seem to conflict. These philosophers imply that questions of science should be left to scientists and scientific method. In fact, Maimonides quotes a passage in the Talmud in which Jewish scholars abandoned an astronomical theory of their own in favor of a theory of gentile scholars (Pesahim 94b).

Maimonides approved of their action, saying that "speculative matters everyone treats according to the results of his own study, and everyone accepts that which appears to him established by proof" (Guide, II, 8). To him, clearly, Science is a matter of speculation and is not the field in which the Bible seeks to be decisive.

Genesis As Allegory | My Jewish Learning

Genesis as Allegory. Creationism and Evolution in Judaism. Science and Judaism. Jewish Science. Jewish Ideas and Beliefs

www.myjewishlearning.com

Jeff Tigay, a 1995 winner of the Lindback Award for distinguished teaching, is Emeritus A.M. Ellis Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages and Literatures in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations of the University of Pennsylvania Jewish Studies Program. From 1995-1998 he was Chair of the Jewish Studies Program. He retired in 2010 after teaching at Penn since 1971.

 

[BobRyan]

And all those Hebrew scholars I cited. C'mon.

Barr was very specific in qualifying his with the term "World class universities" as the qualifier. (with all due respect for your "University of Pennsylvania" example)

The point remains.

It destroys the claim that only Bible-believing creationist Christians could possibly notice these glaringly obvious Bible details.

 

[BobRyan]

As you know, some atheists share with creationists, an agenda to make scripture and science incompatible.

False accusations against Christians is not the compelling form of argument you seem to imagine it to be.

 

[The Barbarian]

False accusations against Christians is not the compelling form of argument you seem to imagine it to be.

Self-referential posting. Interesting.

 

[BobRyan]

Self-referential posting. Interesting.

When I quote you ... you call it "self-referential"?? interesting

 

[The Barbarian]

Barr was very specific in qualifying his with the term "World class universities" as the qualifier. (with all due respect for your "University of Pennsylvania" example)

Sounds like weasel wording. "If they don't agree with me, they aren't a world-class university." National Rankings of universities:

1. Princeton
2. MIT
3. Stanford
4. Harvard
5. Yale
6. University of Chicago
7. John Hopkins
8. University of Pennsylvania

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

Looks like Barr strikes out there, too. Maybe it's time to accept the obvious. World-class Hebrew scholars acknowledge that Genesis 1 and 2 are not literal accounts. Ancient and medieval Hebrew scholars also acknowledged this, as I showed you.

 

[The Barbarian]

False accusations against Christians is not the compelling form of argument you seem to imagine it to be.

Self-referential posting. Interesting.

When I quote you ... you call it "self-referential"??

Your words, not mine. Did you forget typing them?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Barr was very specific in qualifying his with the term "World class universities" as the qualifier. (with all due respect for your "University of Pennsylvania" example)

Sounds like weasel wording.

Sounds like a fellow believer in evolution such as Barr - is stating a detail you find "inconvenient".

Top 10 Universities in the World​

1. Harvard University
2. University of Cambridge
3. Columbia University
4. University of Oxford
5. Yale University
6. Stanford University
7. University of Paris (Sorbonne)
8. University of Chicago
9. University of Michigan
10. Princeton University

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject the idea that what it says is actually true. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:​

​

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience​

​

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story​

​

(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.​

​

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’​

 

[BobRyan]

Looks like Barr strikes out there, too. Maybe it's time to accept the obvious. World-class Hebrew scholars acknowledge that Genesis 1 and 2 are not literal accounts. Ancient and medieval Hebrew scholars also acknowledged this, as I showed you.

Maybe it's time to accept the obvious. World-class Hebrew scholars acknowledge that Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be taken literally as is Ex 20:11 and this is the view of fellow evolutionist scholars of OT history and Hebrew in world-class universities --- by their own standards.

It will be very hard to spin this into "only Bible-believing Christian creationists notice that Bible detail."

 

[The Barbarian]

Maybe it's time to accept the obvious. World-class Hebrew scholars acknowledge that Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be taken literally as is Ex 20:11 and this is the view of fellow evolutionist scholars of OT history and Hebrew in world-class universities --- by their own standards.

I just showed you that your assumption is false. Would you like to see some more of them?

 

[The Barbarian]

I notice the "top university" in your list is No. 4 in the United States alone. More evidence that the "top university" ploy is misleading. As you now see, Barr is just wrong. There are many Hebrew scholars who agree with ancient and medieval Hebrew scholars that Genesis is not a literal account.

 

[BobRyan]

I just showed you that your assumption is false. Would you like to see some more of them?

You need to re-read my statement apparently. It does not state that all scholars on planet earth accept the glaringly obvious bible detail of a literal creation week, literal flood etc.

Rather it says that in the world class universities Barr notes that those scholars of OT history and Hebrew studies - admit that the Bible writers speak of a literal creation week , literal flood etc. And Bible believing Christians who are creationists have been saying that all along.

This utterly destroys the argument that "only Bible believing Christians who are creationists" notice that Bible detail.

By skimming over the details in this statement you conclude that finding even one person that rejects the Bible details listed above as "existing" - somehow disproves the statement above. You are skipping over too many details

 

[BobRyan]

As you now see, Barr is just wrong. There are many Hebrew scholars who agree with ancient and medieval Hebrew scholars that Genesis is not a literal account.

Shows you are not reading the post. Barr did not claim that some scholar out there on planet Earth can't possibly exist who tries to bend the Bible text and make it non-literal. I have not claimed that either.

For your "only Creationists" admit to this Bible detail argument to work - you have to do better than finding someone in Pennsylvania that agrees with you about ignoring the link between Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 or that imagines that Moses was a darwinist trying symbolize/rationalize 7 days into 4 billion years.

 

[BobRyan]

I notice the "top university" in your list is No. 4 in the United States alone. More evidence that the "top university" ploy is misleading. As you now see, Barr is just wrong.

I find a certain paucity in the logic you are using there. Care to explain it??

My text says "world class universities" -- what is this "No. 4" argument. Is it your claim there can only be 3 world class universities on planet Earth???